Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

Sounds like Clark is...

0

Working on getting other owners and such involved on getting this labor deal worked out from what I have read. Mr. Hunt is one of the better owners around right now. He wants a deal and a season...He sees Superbowl ahead!

All these people are pissing me off, just work together before its too late. I don't understand the problems...nothing was wrong with the league before besides a few rules Goodell put in place.

I blaming more of the players union cause they are not wanting to agree to anything but their own terms.
This is why I hate unions, never do any good things for you.

Maybe Clark can Rally the rest of the owners and players to work something out soon.

If the builder comes to you and says that he is not making enough money from his part in your dealings, do you just gleefully accept any financial cuts he demands. or do you have something more to say than that?

Also, if he insists that you have to do an extra job each month, without getting an extra payment for that work, you down with that too?

You just trust that he has your best interests at heart and the concessions will actually mean better profits for you down the road...... somehow?

I bet you are not so quick to make such a financial sacrifice, without exploring all options.

While I don't disagree with a word you said lets test the players theroy.
you own this construction business. The employes get about 60% of the profits, after you take a amount of money off the top for expensise. They one day come up to you and say we want more time off more benfits and we keep the same amount of profits. Would you do this? This is what the players wanted. How is that not also unfair?

While I don't disagree with a word you said lets test the players theroy.
you own this construction business. The employes get about 60% of the profits, after you take a amount of money off the top for expensise. They one day come up to you and say we want more time off more benfits and we keep the same amount of profits. Would you do this? This is what the players wanted. How is that not also unfair?

Actually, this whole thing here, is not related to the scenario I was discussing.

I was challenging Hayvern's assessment of what he would do in the players' position. Because he suggested that he would make the weakest possible business decision, if he were in their shoes.

But, I will play along anyway...

They, one day, came up to me and say they want more....

Wait. Did you forget anything in your scenario?

Did you purposely omit that I demanded they all take paycuts and work more, while our total profits are at an all-time high, PRIOR TO them putting any terms forward?

It is very important to note that this set of terms that you are pinning on the players as "demands" was merely a response to my ridiculous demands.

It would be more of an attempt to list some of the things that could be offered to the players in return for some of the things the owners wanted.

That is not a list of demands.

Since the players were fine with the existing agreement, they really can't be painted as demanding anything. It is merely a matter of what demands the owners will be able to get.

Now, with the courts seeming to side more and more against the owners, they may well find themselves in a position of asking the players what their demands are.

In which case, the players will have their first opportunity to play the villian in this whole thing.

Until then, the guys who started this fight, while cheating, and continuing to cheat, are the bad guys.

However, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are not in this whole mess to get more for themselves. They are in it to get protection for "the other guys".

I am having a hard time watching people point their fingers at the victims here.

I do not consider the fans to be the real victims. All we stand to lose is an entertainment outlet. A lot of these players have their livlihood on the line.

The owners will be billionaires no matter how this all pans out. The fans will not lose their livlihood in this.

Only NFL employees have are making any real risks in the whole situation.

The article is ok at best, any time you result to using profanity in an article I consider it null and void. Not only that but this person is squarely in the players corner but it appears they've been there since day one. I've got my opinion, it's known, and no one is going to change anyone's mind. If you're pro union you like the players. If you think that a business owner should be able to run their business the way the like you'll side with the owners...everyone else is entitled to their gray.

I'm done debating, discussing and hopefully even thinking about this mess. There are so many points of contention in this mess that everyone is right.

Articles like that really really annoy me. I hate the if you don't agree with me your stupid mindsets or your just plants for one side or the other.

There facts that people who write articles like that Leave out
1. The players union decertified During a mediation session. They were not there to get a deal done they were there just to say they were there.
2. The players want something for nothing just like the owners do. They want less OTAs less contact drill LESS WORK. More benfits for the same pay. The owners wanting more games for less pay hurt the game The players less work more benfits same pay ALSO hurts the game.
The fact is that if EITHER side wanted to get a deal done they would have by now. Both sides are saying give me give me NEITHER side is saying I will give this to get this.

To me a fair deal would be this. The owners get there money. The players get there health benfits and less OTAs less contact drills for there health concerns. Both sides give something both sides get something. Yes the players would lose some money but they would work less. I don't think working less paid less is unfair.

The owners are more to blame for this whole mess. But the players are also hurting the game with the greed from there side.

The article is ok at best, any time you result to using profanity in an article I consider it null and void. Not only that but this person is squarely in the players corner but it appears they've been there since day one. I've got my opinion, it's known, and no one is going to change anyone's mind. If you're pro union you like the players. If you think that a business owner should be able to run their business the way the like you'll side with the owners...everyone else is entitled to their gray.

I'm done debating, discussing and hopefully even thinking about this mess. There are so many points of contention in this mess that everyone is right.

In all honesty, I think when you try to bring in politics and pro-union, not pro-union to a situation as unique as the NFL's, you're looking too much into it. There are very few parallels between a normal business who contracts out with a union and the NFL.

It's just not the same, and everyone wants to paint is as being the same as "well if I went to my employer and demanded more money or else I'm leaving..." It's two different worlds, that of the NFL and that that we work in. Your employer can most likely easily replace you. The NFL tried replacement players...didn't work.

Articles like that really really annoy me. I hate the if you don't agree with me your stupid mindsets or your just plants for one side or the other.

There facts that people who write articles like that Leave out
1. The players union decertified During a mediation session. They were not there to get a deal done they were there just to say they were there. 2. The players want something for nothing just like the owners do. They want less OTAs less contact drill LESS WORK. More benfits for the same pay. The owners wanting more games for less pay hurt the game The players less work more benfits same pay ALSO hurts the game.
The fact is that if EITHER side wanted to get a deal done they would have by now. Both sides are saying give me give me NEITHER side is saying I will give this to get this.

To me a fair deal would be this. The owners get there money. The players get there health benfits and less OTAs less contact drills for there health concerns. Both sides give something both sides get something. Yes the players would lose some money but they would work less. I don't think working less paid less is unfair.

The owners are more to blame for this whole mess. But the players are also hurting the game with the greed from there side.

They want all of that IF there is an 18-game season...So they're really still working the same, if not more. You keep saying you are not on anyone's side, but you continually defend the owners...

They want all of that IF there is an 18-game season...So they're really still working the same, if not more. You keep saying you are not on anyone's side, but you continually defend the owners...

So saying the owners are More to blame is defending the owners?

Originally Posted by matthewschiefs

The owners are more to blame for this whole mess. But the players are also hurting the game with the greed from there side.

I understand that the owners started this whole mess I get that. But IMO that is no excuse for the players to get as greedy as they have while claiming they just want to play football. Even if the players were forced to take the Owners WORSE offer (witch I would have also rejected) They would still be makeing FAR more then any of us. It's not like the players will be finding it hard to put food on the table. And the same with the owners. Instead of refuseing to talk until the owners open there books the players could have been TRYING TO REACH A DEAL. Instead of working out deals with the tv companys the owners could have been TRYING TO REACH A DEAL. If the Chiefs and bills are not playing sep 11th I will be more ticked at the owners but I will also be ticked at the players.